Fortunately though, Mozilla keeps on trucking, and Firefox OS appears to be constantly improving. The latest version available is 1.3.0, with the latest preview being 1.4. Now, sources from China have gotten their hands on a ton of screenshots and new information regarding Firefox OS 2.0, and we must say, the UI looks quite pretty.

Marriage is a religious institution. It's redefinition is especially concerning to those of religious background. It was not about "hate" as was often implied or outright stated. It was simply an issue of definitions. Words mean things. When a group tries to change them there are ramifications for that change.

No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.

Also, the LGBT - community isn't trying to "redefine" words, they are only seeking equality in the eyes of the law. It's you who is so horribly defensive about the term "marriage" when LGBT - community at large doesn't care what the term is as long as the rights are equal. Change the legal term to something other than "marriage" and no one cares!

It was called "Domestic Partnership". It had very nearly (although not _exactly_) the same rights, privileges, and legal definition as marriage in California, with one major exception - it was not called "marriage"... It was established in 1999, but did not become "virtually equivalent" legally to marriage until about 2003 (5 years before Prop 8)

Prop 8, the bill that Eich donated money to support, did not remove any of the rights, privileges, or legal definitions. What it did was strike down marriages that occurred in 2004 in San Francisco that were not established under supporting law. These were not Domestic Partnershps, they were deemed marriages - and at the time they was no supporting law to make them legal. They were defacto established by the Mayor at the time, Gaven Newsom. The Supreme Court of California had upheld those defacto marriages as legal in 2008, Prop 8 was intended to reverse this decision though a ballot initiative by popular vote.

I am posting this mostly because I'm tired of people arguing about this issue not knowing the fundamental truths involved. I am personally ALL for gay marriage, but saying things like "the term doesn't matter" is completely missing the point - the controversy is entirely about the term. Pro or against, whatever, that is EXACTLY what it is about. It is not a rights issue, it is about the term "marriage".

Someone who supported prop 8, who says they did so because they believe the term "marriage" should be reserved for it religious use, may very will be honest in saying so. They do not have to hate gays, they do not have to believe in taking away someones rights. Then again maybe they do - I can't see into Eich's heart. Just saying I don't personally believe that donating money to prop 8 automatically makes you a bigot.

All this is to say, stop being so defensive about the definition of a single god damn word.

Both sides of the issue are guilty of this - that is kinda my point... The gay community did not want domestic partnerships or civil unions - it is very much about the word marriage.

I personally think the term does matter, and should be the same either way, but my preference would be to completely divorce the concept of religious marriage with legal marriage. Make everyone get "civil union" or "domestic partnership" licenses, and let religions figure out whether or not they want to recognize same sex couples. It shouldn't even be a political issue at all in my opinion.

It was called "Domestic Partnership". It had very nearly (although not _exactly_)

As I look at it, it's not recognized by the federal law. That means it's not even nearly equal.

but saying things like "the term doesn't matter" is completely missing the point - the controversy is entirely about the term. Pro or against, whatever, that is EXACTLY what it is about. It is not a rights issue, it is about the term "marriage".

Well, I suppose we hang out in different kinds of groups. The people I associate with don't care about the term being used and neither do I.

but my preference would be to completely divorce the concept of religious marriage with legal marriage.

That would be the most sane thing to do. Religion should have no play whatsoever wrt. politics and law.

No. There are two things a marriage means: one is the religious one, and the other is the legal, government - driven one. LGBT - community is seeking equality with the latter, not the former. It's certainly not our fault that both the government and the church use the same word for different things and thus you cannot lay the blame on us.

While I'd like to agree, I think you mean "married in the eyes of God" vs. "married in the eyes of the Government".

If the religious people weren't just hypocritical assholes they'd also complain about a man and women who don't believe in their God getting married by celebrants/registrars and not priests.